Book review: Stephen Bloom's BLUE EYES, BROWN EYES: A CAUTIONARY TALE OF RACE AND BRUTALITY

Maybe you took a course in college that introduced you to the "Blue Eye/ Brown Eye" experiment made famous by activist Jane Elliott?  (note the image below!)  Now known as a diversity and anti-racist educator, she first conducted this experiment with her third grade class just after the assassination of MLK in 1968.  I have been fascinated by this activity for decades (I first stumbled on it myself as a young graduate student in the early 1990s); I even mentioned it with my dissertation and the ensuing analysis on race and language.

So ,,, when I saw that a journalist (Stephen G. Bloom) had written a biography about Elliott, I knew I had to read the book.  When I read the introduction, though, and realized that Bloom finished the book without the blessing of Elliott herself, I wasn't sure where this all was going to go -- did Bloom support Elliott's experiment?  Was this book even anti-racist?

Well, Bloom's feelings about Elliott are complicated (in a way).  He originally started the book with many interviews of Elliott and her family but, by the end of their time together, Elliott asked Bloom to cease the writing of his book because she was uncomfortable with what she saw as Bloom "vilifying" the folks of Riceville, Iowa (her hometown).  Essentially, Bloom pissed her off and she is not the kind of person to give second chances.

Let me just state this:  I LOVED this book.  I think Bloom shows a more genuine portrait of a human who is doing awesome work for humanity but -- at the end of the day -- she is still a "human."  She isn't perfect and she isn't a God.  She is just someone who has chosen to do some important work and hasn't always been praised for it.  My copy of the book has so many highlights in it (and scribbled notes) but here are six points that stuck out to me:

1,  Elliott uses the word "experience," not "experiment."  This seems like a pretty important distinction.  Page xi of the introductory pages has a whole discussion about the semantics of the language choices here.

2.  There was a huge divide in her hometown about what she did with the original third graders and what she did later with adults.  Many of the folks in Riceville felt like Elliott was implying that they were racist.  I think I am with her, though, in saying that all people have racist tendencies because we have been raised in a racist culture.  It doesn't mean that we are bad people or should be defensive -- it means that we need to be aware of what is happening and be open to change.  Her exercise was picked up almost immediately after it happened in 1968 by media like The Tonight Show and I imagine that this made local folks super uncomfortable (and later many of the locals were upset by how much money she was making with her workshops.  Sexism anyone?).

3.  As a teacher who did some unconventional activities in the classroom (even before this famous experiment), her fellow educators got a wee bit jealous:  "The experiment crystalized resentment that had been building ever since Elliott joined the faculty" (91).  There is also a lot of good discussion here about what happens when we are trying to reach course objectives via original activities: "How much leeway should the teacher be allowed?" (131).

4.  It is possible that she was not the originator of this experiment (no matter how much she claims that she is).  Pedagogy is all about "theft" in my books but we should be willing to build off of each other and give credit where credit is due.  Bloom talks about Wilda Wood and her own version of this in the mid 1960s, before Elliott's first version of the experiment.  It is likely that she read about this activity (since it was in all the teaching magazines of the time) and it got her wheels turning.  This happens to me all the time.  I am not sure why Elliott is so adamant in not acknowledging the several examples that Bloom investigated (I tracked down many of these sources myself so he didn't make them up).

5.  Bloom talks about alternative means of the "Blue Eye, Brown Eye" activity which might be considered kinder and more compassionate (page 196) -- I guess the big question becomes, of course, if these alternative routes are as effective at "shocking" white people into understanding?  As Bloom asks, is there any better "crash course" at helping folks to "modify racial prejudice"? (189)

6.  Elliott has a somewhat abrasive personality that could either make you love her or hate her.  Though I absolutely admire her work in so many ways, I can get that she might "rub" people the wrong way.  She might even have misappropriated some quotations so that they were credited to her (page 208) but I think this just makes her more human. I am not saying that it is okay to steal or plagiarize but .... it happens and sometimes we might forget our original source.  I wish she were more open to correct herself if she was, indeed, on the wrong side.

If you are still reading this blog post?  Read this book!  (especially if you know a lot about this experiment!).  I still love Elliott's work and I will always support what she is doing.  If you are interested in purchasing this book, visit an independent bookstore like Powells.

PS:  I am so glad that I finally managed to do some thinking outside of my own teaching!